Posted October 20, 2012 | comments 21 Comments

Letter to the Editor: Far left doesn't want to hear ideas that aren't their own


I read Gene Rigelon's letter to the editor today, Oct. 5, that was in response to Jane Silek's letter. The more I read, the more confused I became. I recalled reading Silek's letter, and could not remember anything that was so awful about it! So I went to the Northern Virginia Daily's website and pulled up her letter. Nothing egregious about her letter at all, but what apparently irritated Rigelon was that someone would dare critize the "annointed one" at all!

I discovered from Rigelon's letter that Silek was representing the right, and that she was only "inflaming" the public to make President Barack Obama a one-term president. I'll bet Silek didn't realize what lofty goals she had when she sat down at her keyboard that day! But further, Rigelon implies that Silek is motivated by fear that her "all-white male heirarchy is being threatened" and that "they will vigorously deny it." The Left never misses a chance to play the race card, but it does get old!

Mr Rigelon is a very good example of those on the far left. They share this idea that they somehow have a right not to hear, see, become aware of, or even be able to imagine any ideas that don't square with their world view.

G.A. Settle, Front Royal

21 Comments | Leave a comment


    We all make typos but getting your title lead in right is important. That said, how anyone can actually read Gene's letter, then go back and look at Silek's straight up lies and then claim there is nothing egregious......
    Oh wait, Settle said "anointed* one", no explanation necessary, Fox Spews wins another mark in the dumbing down of America column.

    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.~Abraham Lincoln

    *I know quotes are Jane's thing but it was the first thought that came to mind.

      Katybug...Re "I know quotes are Jane's thing "...when a quote describes the situation,,,use it! And the one you chose was perfect.

      Re Silek's letter, it was probably the dumbest letter I have ever read in my entire life. Sorry, but that is a fact.

    Dear Mr. D. A. Settle,

    Did you learn the debating tactic named "The Gish Gallop" by observing the performance of your friends, Paul Romney and Mitt Ryan?


    The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes"

    The formal debating jargon term for this is spreading. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bulls*** on the practice, like the internet, such techniques are remarkably common.


    In a debate on the morality of America's Founding Fathers, a Gish Gallop might look like this:

    "Sure we think that they were good folks, but did you know that Washington not only had more than 100,000 slaves, but he also staged gladiatorial games and made them fight to the death? He also ran a network of opium dens and used his gladiators as couriers to deliver opium all over the 52 states. In fact Washington's opium smuggling got so bad that the British had to step in which caused the Opium War that led to the Revolutionary War and John Locke's famous statement that he had to be given the liberty to smoke opium, or he'd prefer death. That also points out another problem, in that most of the Founding Fathers were part of Washington's opium cult and Ben Franklin's most harmful invention was actually a process to purify the active ingredient in opium and inject it. That's right, Ben Franklin invented heroin! What's more, by the time Andrew Jackson was president the US government was so full of drug addicts that they created a soft drink that was just a way to get cocaine into their systems. Don't believe me? It was called Coca Cola because it was a cola with cocaine in it. Go look it up and you'll find I'm right, coca cola really did contain cocaine!"


    Mitt Ryan and Paul Romney have published their tax plan to lower taxes and create jobs.

    For a detailed explanation of how the Paul Romney- Mitt Ryan tax plan is able to cut taxes by $5 trillion without raising taxes on the middle class or exploding the deficit:


    I promise you will love this.


    Well said people! I take Settle's criticism as a compliment. They (the radical right) are truly runing scared.

    It is so amusing, in an ironic sort of way, to watch the constant infighting between the two factions of the Dominionist Empire Musical Chairs Party.

    I did go back to the original archived letter from October 2 and found this little gem:

    "Has he failed to notice that we are under attack in the Middle East ..."

    Surely you will note that the attack did not take place in Kansas or Nebraska or Missouri or anywhere within the continental USA where the PEOPLE of the USA have a legitimate interest.

    Instead, the attack took place in a region where it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the RESIDENTS of that area do not want outsiders messing around in their tribal insanities.

    I still plan on voting for our neighbor's cat. It comes to see us frequently because it is welcome here. Cats are smart enough to stay away from places where they are not wanted.

    If theocracies are bad (and they are), then why do the American people allow a theocracy to continue growing here?


    OK, all-righty then, here is a "great" idea that is not from a left-leaning liberal think tank urging you to vote for his cat that I am almost 100% convinced G.A. Settle will approve: Overthrow 100 years of progress on women's suffrage issues....

    Female Tea Party Leader thinks Women Shouldn't Vote

    "Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting."


    Teabilly Woman Voter Says Women Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Vote

    "There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women," she says. "They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men."


    ... or Google for your own version of "tea party women shouldn't vote".

    We all love Bill O'Riley when he addresses women as "the ladies" and Rubbish Limbaugh's use of the endearment term, "FemiNazi's". This takes the issue out of the realm of 'dog whistles' and into the more descriptive 'fog horn'.

    John, you are right to be concerned about the move to make this country a theocracy. I'm afraid that voting for your neighbor's cat will do nothing to prevent such a calamity. Rather vote for the candidate who will most likley to resist the religious right. Guess who?

    And now we have grammar trolls on here!!! Liberals are always so perfect aren't they? SMH..

      We all make typos.......

      But you just ignored that part of the sentence right? If I want someone to pay attention and believe me, then my first sentence should at least make sense.

      How should one respond to a double down of even another persons easily proven lies? Please provide some insight. The first letter contained nothing but some off the wall teabilly logic that I don't think even Fox Spews would try to sell. I'd bet they even had the President's comments to America on air the following morning. It was bad enough that someone would actually have the "brass" to publicly create a whole fantasy line of events, but then after more than one reader responds setting the story straight, another chimes in saying they saw nothing wrong with the lies....I understand, really I do. When your candidate is out there politicizing the whole event before families are even notified of their lost loved ones, it kinda gives the green light on any random pig shite flies, right?

      BTW...A "troll" is a person who visits sites to attack commentators while not contributing even one iota of information to the topic. Sound familiar?

    To Silek and Settle: Ignore the attempt by these leftists to rain on our pre-victory parade. They are on-line bullies who browbeat everyone who is disappointed with the failed policies of the exalted one with a constant barrage of blue tinted smoke and mirrors.

    BTW katybug, I know you are a stickler for references. This reference strongly suggests that Lincoln is not the origin of "Better to remain silent..." More likely is Maurice Switzer, perhaps drawing from the Bible. http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/17/remain-silent/

      So, you 'may' be correct. A google search provides both sites that give the claim to Lincoln as being the most known person to reference it and ones that can't link it to Lincoln (as yours).

      We can attach the quote to anyone or anything you like, its meaning remains. It does not change the fact that one writer submitted a complete fantasy piece. Not one, or two, but three other writers have written in to call said writer out on her rather poor attempt at fooling the ignorant. Ignorant in this case actually being those who had no idea the President was in fact in front of the American people the next day, along with other, more disgusting lies.

      Perhaps you should look for a point that you can actually debate with factual information instead of running story to story pouting and flinging insults because your own attempts to mislead failed. What did the third write in say? Oh yeah, turn off the boob tube.

      Valley Patriot, Why is it that the left can 'browbeat' you? You accuse the left of doing cut and paste postings; however, you to the same, don't you? Have you ever posted anything as fact on this site that was truth? If you can prove our posting wrong, please--as a service to the other readers--please do. I love to learn new things; that said I am not interested in new lies.

      Romney is doing 360 degree turns on almost every topic discussed, that doesn't bother you????

        @ jane re October 21, 2012 12:21 PM post:

        I should have been more specific, given the audience. I was, and am, referring to references that are repetitively posted on numerous blog pages.

        As to my posts, have I ever posted anything as fact on this site that was false...not knowingly. And I usually don't attempt to disprove another post. It's futile and only agitates. Besides I don't often see outright mistakes or "lies" as you call them. I see folks trying to prove their points. I just wish some of them would find new ways to do it. For example, I know you guys think Romney/Ryan would lie if the truth served them better. OK, I get it. But you don't have to post the same reference in every discussion.

        Last, jane, you said you are not interested in new lies and you continuously howl about "...the same old lies." The only thing left is to start reading some of Obama's.

          vp, The problem is that Romney has reversed his stand on EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING of substance. If you are really following him, you must be aware of that. He is SO deceitful that I don't understand how anyone can trust him. Also his reaction to anyone who challenges him is meant with aggression--not exactly a reaction one expects in a leader.

          The Salt Lake City Tribune supports Obama. If you haven't read their reason, you really should.

          Truth is very important to me. Just a few minutes ago, my husband was reading our FB page and there is a posting showing Ann Romney. claiming that she made a statement so far fetched that we both looked it up and found it to be a fabrication. He emailed the poster to advise that Snopes labeled it false and hopefully our friend will remove that post..

    V.P. says, "-----our pre-victory parade". I don't think if you are smart, V.P., you better have a pre-victory anything just yet for Romney. Of course, that kind of boast many times is just pure bluster and everyone recognizes it as such. You no more know for sure who is going to win this election any more than I do. From what I have read from numerous sources both "left" and "right", this is going to be a very close election and no one with any real knowledge can honestly say for sure right now who will be the winner.

    And if Romney wins the election? Not only does that spell bad news for the middle class and the future for this country, but will be cause for those of you on the "far right" to be real nervous. You can try to console yourselves, "better than Obama", but Romney is not one of your "dependable conservatives". Romney has shown more times than can be counted that he will so glibly say anything and do anything to get elected going back and forth on positions. He has gone from being a big-time Massachusetts moderate when governor of the state (Romney Care! etc.), to the "severely conservative" candidate during the primaries, then etch-a-sketch flip-flop back to "moderate Mitt" just before the election. He will change sometimes in a matter of hours, on what he says he "believes" in and will do as president. He has made it plain that he does not have a core.

    And if this country is so unfortunate as to get Romney as president, he will be immediately looking toward a second term----more reason for lots of questions on "which Mitt" will show up any day of the week and which "way" he will go on the issues.

    And I am sure, G A Settle that. being obviously very conservative yourself, you are very inquisitive about that which the left has to say and I am certain you make a special effort to hear and understand their side right?

Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137